Re: [HACKERS] PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

On 7/30/17 12:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch  writes:
>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 12:05:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Well, OK, but I'd still like to tweak configure so that it records
>>> an absolute path for prove rather than just setting PROVE=prove.
>>> That way you'd at least be able to tell from the configure log
>>> whether you are possibly at risk.
> 
>> That's an improvement.

I disagree with that, unless there is an actual risk.

> The reason it does that seems to be that we use AC_CHECK_PROGS
> rather than AC_PATH_PROGS for locating "prove".  I can see no
> particular consistency to the decisions made in configure.in
> about which to use:

We use the "PATH" variants when we need a fully qualified name.  For
example, at some point or another, we needed to substitute a fully
qualified perl binary name into the headers of scripts.

If there is no such requirement, then we should use the non-PATH variants.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services